4 ms·

The authors opinion about the misogyny of the speaker's trivialization does not carry nearly the amount of weight as legal prohibitions on hate speech. I do not

• 4bpp 12y ago
  Eh, if that wasn't clear, I am not claiming that the author's statement constitutes censorship - rather, that statement, in conjunction with the other statements the author makes or very likely would agree with, constitutes an advocacy of it. (Certainly, the author does not merely advocate dudes stating opinions that agree with his.) If we collate them, I believe we obtain something like * Women are underrepresented in organisations which matter, such as in particular open source software development conferences. * This underrepresentation is [at least to a significant extent] due to these organisations maintaining a climate that is hostile or unpleasant to female contributors. * One instance of such hostility are misogynistic statements being made freely [without punitive measures being taken by the organisers in response]. * The trivialisation of the concept of "rape culture" is one such misogynistic statement. Since the leap from the first point being merely about a small free software conference to applying to every forum in which anything resembling a binding political decision is made is natural (if anything, most would argue that proportional representation of each gender in any such forum is much more significant than proportional representation in the free software movement), the complete argument does seem to imply that concept X should not be trivialised in any forum of nontrivial influence - and, as I stated in my original post, concept X is sufficiently recursive already that the upgrade to "concept X, and if F(Y)='trivialisation of concept Y is to be prohibited', F(X), F(F(X)), etc." seems fairly near. (I have used the implication that "misogynistic => to be prohibited in any influential forum" which I would like to believe I derived above in the definition of F.) You are right in that the referenced "joke" is not a good example of a nuanced discussion of rape culture, but it at least feels to me like accepting the proposition that "jokes about (the concept that jokes and nitpicks about $concept are bad) are bad" here is like giving 0.9 miles and expecting the whole mile to not be taken. ("are bad" is to be understood as shorthand for "are misogynistic" and hence "to be prohibited(...)" as above.) (Apologies for what you might perhaps perceive as an unnecessarily tedious writing style; given that this is a very politically and emotionally charged topic, I felt the need to tread more carefully to avoid being erroneously assumed to hold some wildly unpopular opinion.)
  • dmkolobov 12y ago
    I think generalized induction about "contept X" is the wrong tactic here, even though the formalization is for the sake of clarity. The specifics of this case matter. The thing is that "context X", in this case, refers to "rape culture", which at its core is a name for institutionalized systems which support and allow rape to occur. Allowing trivializations of such a term is completely out of line for a community that claims to support inclusivity and diverrsity. I understand that in this way many trivializations of many different "concepts x" could be argued to be not ok. When "concept x" refers to oppressed groups speaking abut the issues that affect them, especially if the issues are ones so violent and brutal as rape, I think this is good. Such things should not be trivialized. Organizations setting limits on what type of discussion is allowed is a good thing, and again, specifics matter. The statement, at its heart, stifles the speech of these groups by trivializing the concerns of those people who are affected by the systems termed "rape culture"( systems supporting violence against certain groups ). The fact that the transition to a more inclusive community involves prohibiting this type of speech is a given IMO, since that speech is precisely what makes for a hostile climate to non-white-guy contributors. Such statements are problematic if the community in question claims to be based on freedom and inclusivity. [Edit]: In general, I think "freedom of speech"( and the implied "freedom to be offended" ), are less important than maintaining a community climate that feels safe for its members.
    • 4bpp 12y ago
      The problem I see with your argument is that it presupposes that "rape culture" exists (and, at one point, that women are an "oppressed group"). Although especially the bracketed statement really does not square with my gut feeling regarding the definition and the intensity of the word "oppression", the problem here is more fundamentally that it appears to willfully ignore the question of who gets to decide which concepts are legitimate and which aren't and on what basis that decision should be made. If we simply say that all claims about oppressive systems are not to be questioned and to be accorded the same treatment you argue to be justified for the claim about "rape culture", we will also have to accept the reasoning that jokes at the expense of "Zionist-occupied government" theory are anti-Gentile (something which a good portion of Gentiles would be very bewildered by) and those at the expense of 9/11 truthers are anti-American; at the same time, simply saying that these are different because feminists are right and conspiracy theorists are wrong is about as convincing as the "nothing is wrong with executing murderers" argument for death penalty, which leaves the possibility of actually making a convincing argument for how we can know that feminists are right to the exclusion of everyone them being right would make it an imperative to silence (parallelling the presumable possibility of justifying the death penalty in appropriate cases by presenting an overwhelmingly reliable method for determining guilt of murder) - something which a great many people would be itching to see, if you have it. If "post-liberal" feminists think the patriarchy so powerful, I find it hard to understand why they are not more worried about the possibility of the machinery they happily advocate to be set up for their own protection being co-opted by the same and turned against them. The persecution complex of midwestern American Evangelicals demonstrates that even a group completely outgunning everyone else in terms of both numbers and sheer influence can successfully delude itself into believing that it is oppressed and in dire need of protection, and the damage they could do to the feminist cause if they got to seize the "safe space" policies in place at many university campuses and rewrite them to sanction statements that "make Christians feel unsafe" in the same way in which they currently sanction statements that "make women feel unsafe" is palpable. > Organizations setting limits on what type of discussion is allowed is a good thing In general? Now that's a statement I would really be inclined to apply the adjective "problematic" to... Regarding your position following "[Edit]:", accepting it as true still allows for two possible consequences apart from "restrict freedom of speech until everyone feels safe", namely: * trivially, to exclude the members who feel unsafe until everyone feels safe; * less trivially, to educate/ease/pressure/brainwash (whichever verb you prefer) members who feel unsafe into feeling safe. If neither of the two options is considered legitimate under any circumstance, any individual with a psychiatric disorder making them feel a constant feeling of dread would be sufficient to shut down any forum to which they manage to gain admission. Conversely, I have yet to see a comprehensive argument against even a stubborn approach along the lines of "People still feel unsafe? More brainwashing starting at an earlier age it is, then!" - something we would probably do without batting an eye if a different feeling of unsafety interfered with the social participation of a large portion of the demographic, like the hikikomori phenomenon.
• serf 12y ago
  > think a lot of good would come if we stopped using the word "censorship", and just responded to what people actually had concerns with. Censorship is distinct from a dude stating his opinions, and encouraging others to agree with him. You're right when you say that censorship is distinct from people stating their opinions, but you're wrong if you think we should stop using the word. The word censorship is useful, because most movements seek to squelch the speech targeted against them, not necessarily re-educate the speaker. This is because of the power of group-think; if a radical idea gains momentum it could spell doom for an entire movement of people due to the tendency of people to believe group opinions rather than singular opinions. Censoring is exactly what they are doing, removing an opinion from the world that they value as obscene. Nearly all posts on HN that i've read that have thrown around the phrase 'rape-culture' have been entirely about "X CEO of Y company said Z. Fire them!" or "Can you believe X said Y? Z groups demand resignation!" Where, exactly, is the re-education of concerns happening? I've read the phrase 'rape-culture' at least a hundred times on this forum along with about 40 different definitions and nuanced characteristics , leaving me now clueless about what is or isn't funny. This situation has effectively censored anyone who is too conflicted to talk about the subject for fear of retribution or loss of reputation/livelihood. It seems the only people who can talk about it are those involved with whatever movements are against the use of the phrase all-together. I can't think of anything more effective than self-censorship due to fear.